The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has withdrawn its appeal in the Mukherji EB-1A case, leaving in place a US District Court for the District of Nebraska ruling that found the agency’s Kazarian Two-Step adjudication procedure was adopted unlawfully in 2010. This development is significant because it reinforces a legal challenge to how USCIS has handled certain employment-based extraordinary ability petitions for years.
What was the Mukherji EB-1A case about?
The dispute arose from Mukherji v. Miller, 4:24CV3170, 2026 WL 895708 (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026), a case concerning an EB-1A I-140 petition filed by Ms. Mukherji. EB-1A is the immigration category for people with extraordinary ability and an I-140 petition is the employment-based immigrant visa filing used to seek that classification.
The Nebraska court held that USCIS wrongly denied Ms. Mukherji’s petition by using a second review step, called the “final merits determination,” which the court found was ultra vires to the statute and regulations. The court also found that the Kazarian Two-Step adjudication procedure had been adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act in 2010.
What the court ordered in the Mukherji EB-1A case?
After finding that Ms. Mukherji had met the statutory requirements, the district court ordered USCIS to approve her visa petition. That ruling meant the agency was required to grant the petition instead of continuing to deny it under the challenged review framework.
According to the press release, USCIS then sought review before the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, Missouri. That appeal delayed the relief ordered by the district court and kept the case in litigation longer.
Why did USCIS appeal earlier?
USCIS’s earlier position was that the Nebraska district court’s ruling should not stand and that the agency’s adjudication framework remained valid. By appealing, USCIS attempted to overturn the district court’s conclusion that the Kazarian Two-Step process had been unlawfully adopted and improperly applied in Ms. Mukherji’s case.
The agency also appeared to be defending its ability to continue using the “final merits determination” as part of EB-1A review. In practical terms, the appeal was meant to preserve USCIS’s discretion over how it assesses extraordinary ability petitions.
Why was the appeal withdrawn?
USCIS has now withdrawn the appeal, meaning the district court’s order remains in force and USCIS must approve the petition as directed. The press release described the withdrawal as a major development because it removes the obstacle that had delayed the court-ordered relief.
“Today, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services withdrew its appeal of the US District Court for the District of Nebraska’s decision,” the statement said. This decision refers to the ruling that struck down the Kazarian Two-Step procedure as unlawfully adopted. The release also said the decision will remain persuasive authority showing that USCIS cannot continue relying on the Kazarian policy without proper notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Why does the ruling matter?
The press release argues that the Mukherji decision will continue to matter beyond this single case because it challenges the legal foundation of the Kazarian policy itself. In the statement’s words, “Critically, the Mukherji decision will remain persuasive legal authority to establish that USCIS cannot rely on its ‘Kazarian policy’ and the two-step processing without completing the notice-and-comment rulemaking.”
That makes the case important not just for Ms. Mukherji, but also for other applicants who believe their EB-1A or EB-1B I-140 petitions were denied under the same framework.
What it means for past EB-1A and EB-1B denials?
The release says people who received EB-1A or EB-1B I-140 denials between the adoption of the Kazarian policy on December 22, 2010 and the present may be able to challenge those decisions in US district court. It advises affected applicants to consult a qualified US immigration attorney who also handles district court civil actions.
The attorneys at Ariela Lake Law & Consulting PLLC and the Law Office of Brian Green PLLC said they are ready to assist with challenges to what they described as improper EB-1A and EB-1B I-140 denials. Brian Green also posted on LinkedIn to congratulate appellate co-counsel Jess Dawgert and Sarah Vuong on the outcome.
The withdrawal of the appeal gives added weight to the Nebraska court’s reasoning and could encourage other petitioners to revisit old denials. It also strengthens the broader argument that agencies must follow proper rulemaking procedures before enforcing policies that affect immigration outcomes. For EB-1A and EB-1B applicants, the case could become a key reference point in disputes over whether USCIS exceeded its authority when applying the Kazarian framework.